New Mexico Effective Teaching Task Force...The Effective Teaching Task Force was formed by Executive...
51
New Mexico Effective Teaching Task Force Final Report and Recommendations August 26, 2011
Transcript of New Mexico Effective Teaching Task Force...The Effective Teaching Task Force was formed by Executive...
New Mexico Effective Teaching Task Force
Final Report and Recommendations
August 26, 2011
2
Presented By:
Hanna Skandera, Santa Fe; Task Force Chair Public Education Department Secretary-designate
David Abbey, Santa Fe; Director of the Legislative Finance Committee
Frances Ramirez-Maestas, Santa Fe; Director of the Legislative Education Study Committee
Charles Bowyer, Albuquerque; Executive Director of the National Education
Association – New Mexico
Lindsey Cross, Gallup; Managing Director, Teacher Leadership and Development at
Teach For America
Tammy Davis, Artesia; Principal at Central Elementary School in Artesia
James Gallegos, Cimarron; Superintendent at Cimarron Municipal Schools
Nyeta Haines, Las Cruces; Principal at Las Cruces High School
Cherie Love, Las Cruces; Second grade general education teacher at Conlee
Elementary School in Las Cruces
Lillian Montoya-Rael, Santa Fe; Principal at Flywheel Ventures
Dennis Roch, Texico; Assistant Superintendent at Texico Municipal Schools and
Member of the New Mexico House of Representatives serving on the House
Education Committee
Dr. Karen Sanchez-Griego, Albuquerque; Principal of Atrisco Heritage
Academy High School in Albuquerque
Katherine Sandoval-Snider, Albuquerque; Director at Albuquerque Institute for
Mathematics and Science
Dr. Suchint Sarangarm, Roswell; Assistant Superintendent for Assessment,
Evaluation and Technology at Roswell Independent Schools
Carlotta Thode, Kirtland; Parent Representative, Legal Secretary at Farmington City Attorney’s Office
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 4-8
Introduction 9-11
Section I: Teacher and School Leader Evaluation 12-19
Section II: Professional Development 20-25
Section III: Recruitment and Retention 26-32
Section IV: Compensation and Advancement 33-37
Section V: Next Steps 38-39
Appendix A: Meeting Dates and Topics 40-41
Appendix B: Works Cited and Works Reviewed 42-44
Appendix C: Fast Facts – Current NM System 45-51
4
Executive Summary
Overview The impact of an effective teacher has great value not only to the school, the district, and the
state, but most importantly an effective teacher reaches a student who then becomes the
beneficiary of a new world of possibilities. Delivering on the promise of an excellent teacher is
the key to lifting New Mexico’s students out of poverty and closing the achievement gap which
doesn’t do justice to our state. Therefore, no one can overstate the importance of an effective
teacher.
The professionals of the Effective Teaching Task Force place the highest importance on this
opportunity. Their work is completed with the hope that these recommendations will benefit the
teachers, students, and students of New Mexico for generations.
Purpose of the Effective Teacher Task Force
The Effective Teaching Task Force was formed by Executive Order in April 2011 with the
purpose of delivering on the promise of recruiting, retaining and rewarding New Mexico’s most
effective teachers and school leaders. Over the course of 3 months, this 15 member Task Force
representing teachers and school leaders across the state and with over 100 years of classroom
experience, met 10 times for over 60 hours to deliver recommendations to Governor Martinez.
The recommendations in this report are the product of the Teaching Task Force.
The current teacher recognition process in New Mexico places emphasis on years of experience
and credentials obtained. Members of the Task Force recognize these factors are important;
however, they fail to offer teachers any acknowledge of student achievement. Many New
Mexico teachers see the growth of students in the classroom, but work in a system that does not
recognize or reward them for it. The purpose of the Task Force was to find the most meaningful
way to change this dynamic and place student achievement at the forefront of teacher excellence
in order to change a system with ‘qualified’ teachers to classrooms full of effective teachers.
The sense of urgency in this process is essential. Every school day, nearly 330,000 New Mexico
students enter the classroom with the expectation their educational leaders are doing all they can
to support them. To send the message that important teacher reforms can wait is to fail those
children who won’t get a second chance at an education.
5
Recommendations
The Task Force has made recommendations in the areas related to Teacher and School Leader
Evaluations, Professional Development, Recruitment and Retention, and Compensation and
Advancement. With the exception of two recommendations, all were approved unanimously by the 15
member Task Force. The two that were not approved unanimously each received one no vote and are
recommendations 3 (using the Standards Based Assessment to calculate a teachers value-add score) and 4
(bridge policy for teachers in non-tested grades and subjects) below. The full recommendations by the
Task Force are:
1. New Mexico should replace its overly simplistic pass/fail teacher evaluation system with five
effectiveness levels.
2. Effectiveness levels should only be assigned after careful consideration of multiple measures,
including student achievement data, observations, and other proven measures selected by local
districts from a list of options approved by New Mexico’s Public Education Department (PED).
3. In order to reliably capture student achievement, we recommend the use of a value-added model
of data analysis. Each teacher’s value-added contribution would be calculated by PED staff, and
after a data review procedure similar to that which occurs before the release of schoolwide
student achievement data, this calculation would be disseminated to local districts for inclusion in
the locally-adopted teacher evaluation process. In addition, each teacher should receive a copy of
his or her value-added calculation in order to inform instruction. Teachers in tested grades and
subjects will be evaluated in the following way:
a. 50% based on VAM of student achievement; b. 25% based on observations; and c. 25% based on locally adopted (and PED approved) multiple measures.
4. We recommend phasing in the use of value-added evaluations, first for teachers in tested grades
and subjects and subsequently for teachers in non-tested grades and subjects, though both subsets
of teachers will be evaluated through observations and other approved measures immediately.
Until such time as other assessments are available and/or approved for use in calculating value-
added measurements of student achievement in non-tested grades and subjects, teachers in non-
tested grades and subjects will be evaluated in the following way:
a. 25% based on a schools A-F School Grade; b. 25% based on observations; and c. 50% based on locally adopted (and PED approved) multiple measures.
5. In addition to student achievement, we recommend the continued use of observations, with
objective protocols, in the evaluation of each teacher’s performance.
6
6. As local districts adopt research-driven, PED-approved measures for the remaining portion of a
teacher’s evaluation, it is important to ensure opportunity for key stakeholders (teachers, school
leaders, parents, community members, etc.) to provide public input on the policy decision.
7. New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system should utilize a matrix in which the multiple
components of a teacher’s evaluation combine to determine a teacher’s overall effectiveness
rating.
8. We recommend that a post-evaluation conference with the evaluator provide each teacher with
actionable feedback, though we caution that this conference and the feedback delivered therein
not be considered a “due process” requirement without which an ineffective teacher may not be
terminated.
9. As with teachers, New Mexico should replace its overly simplistic pass/fail principal evaluation
system with five effectiveness levels.
10. We recommend that the emphasis on student achievement in teacher evaluation also be reflected
in the evaluation of the school leader.
11. The remaining 50% should be comprised of other measures, half of which must consider the
fidelity with which the principal implements the teacher evaluation process.
12. Similar to that used in the teacher evaluation system, New Mexico’s principal evaluation system
should utilize a matrix in which the components of a teacher’s evaluation combine to determine a
principal’s overall effectiveness rating.
13. Establishment of a Professional Development Committee by the PED to review research in the
area of effective professional development and make recommendations on allowable, research-
driven, proven professional development opportunities to be chosen by the state, districts, and
administration. The purpose of the standing committee is to ensure that professional development
is designed to enhance student learning and continuously improve the quality of teaching and
educational leadership in New Mexico schools.
14. Redirect current established state and federal professional development funds toward approved
professional development.
15. Professional Development approved by the Professional Development Committee must be
implemented by districts and schools and individuals in a manner which has demonstrated
positive student achievement impact.
16. Make STARS data available to individual schools, administrators, and teachers so that accurate
data can be effectively utilized. Additionally, provide professional development on the use of
data specific to the state, district, school, teacher, and student needs and goals.
17. In an effort to ensure fidelity and continuity of programs, professional development programs
should total no less than 49 hours in a specific area of need.
7
18. Data should be collected quarterly to assure professional development techniques presented are
implemented in the classroom. PED should keep records of individual teacher’s professional
development and professional intervention plan documentation.
19. Statewide professional development should be implemented annually across the state and it
should be “frontloaded” prior to the beginning of the school year.
20. Principal professional development should align to teacher professional development. In
conjunction with their direct supervisors, principals should be developing data-driven
professional development plans that improve student outcomes for their building, increase their
school grade, which accounts for 50% of their evaluation, and allow them to meet other measures
of performance captured in the other 50% of their annual evaluation.
21. Create a diversified pay structure that is based on teacher effectiveness (outputs) as evidenced by
student growth, observations, and other clear, multiple measures. As the New Mexico Teacher
Evaluation System is refined, it is recommended that a task force is assembled to research
incentive and compensation programs that have been implemented in recent years to determine
the best practices within those programs that lead to improved student academic achievement and
teacher retention and recruitment.
22. Create a system for incentive pay to teach in critical-shortage subject areas (i.e. math, science,
special education classes, in rural areas and other hard to staff areas. This system could support
incentives for teachers who work in Title I schools, as well as other at risk factors identified in
each district’s area (i.e. math and science, urban, rural, etc).
23. Provide academic scholarships in New Mexico for those going into education, including high-
quality, alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four
years in a high-need field or location.
24. Develop a program that offers an opportunity for an adjunct license for part time teaching.
25. Provide advancement and leadership opportunities for teachers. Utilize three tiered licensed
teachers expertise by providing greater leadership capacity throughout schools, districts and in the
state.
26. Adequately fund school budgets to give teachers time to plan and collaborate with their
colleagues.
27. Provide state-generated principal support groups to provide training in the state’s teacher
evaluation methods, priority school requirements, and uniform interventions. New Mexico
processes need to be uniform, transparent and implemented with fidelity. In addition, like
principal groups should be allowed to share challenges, solutions, questions and concerns.
28. Beware of increasing paperwork and administrative burden for administrators. Be sure
accountability processes are aligned within the state department, districts offices and schools.
8
29. Develop and implement research based recommendations for ways that central office
administration, starting with the superintendent, can support principals in their instructional
leadership roles.
30. Examine principal pay scales and remove disincentives to advancement for qualified school
leaders moving from the classroom to the principal’s office.
31. Require annual evaluations and professional development plans which are in alignment with the
licensure system.
32. Incorporate teacher effectiveness into the licensure process.
33. Restructure the current 3-tier salaries/shift funding to results tied to annual evaluations and
professional development plans.
34. Provide incentives to effective teachers and remove ineffective teachers from the classroom.
Additionally, the Task Force recommends providing statutory due process rights to teachers after
attaining level 2 licensure and receiving effective evaluations
35. Align the training and experience with the 3-tiered licensure system.
36. Require annual principal evaluations.
37. Evaluate the current 3-Tiered Licensure System and dossier to minimize administrative costs and
determine effectiveness. This should occur within 3 months to a year.
38. Delay implementation of performance based compensation system until the 2013-2014 school
year.
9
Introduction
Overview While there is no silver bullet in education, research has clearly shown that one of the most important
school-related factors influencing a child’s academic achievement is the quality of his or her teacher
(Sanders, 2003). President Obama and Secretary Duncan recognized the impact and prioritized teacher
effectiveness as part of the Race to the Top competition. Further, multiple states are redesigning existing
teacher and school leader evaluation systems to reflect the importance of student achievement.
Studies have shown that if we give the most at-risk students the most effective teachers, we could close
the achievement gap. Conversely, the data show that if a student is placed in a classroom with a low
performing teacher, the student will struggle to make up learning gains lost (Hanushek, 2011). For
example, low performing teacher’s students do not stay on grade level, but actually fall behind 13
percentile points from the beginning of the year, emphasizing the importance of removing low-
performing teachers from the classroom (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
Any redesigned teacher and school leader evaluation system must include multiple measures that
prioritize student learning, as well as observations and other possible measures that effectively capture a
true picture of teacher effectiveness. A rigorous and comprehensive system will not only provide a
holistic view of a teacher’s true impact on their students, but also encourage flexibility and buy-in at the
local and school level.
The purpose of this report is to guide New Mexico in the development of a new teacher and school leader
evaluation system that prioritizes student academic gains, recruits, recognizes, and retains “rock star”
teachers, and provides for transparency and accountability to stakeholders in the use of taxpayer dollars.
Principles The Task Force believes that there are many outstanding, effective, and hardworking teachers and school
leaders throughout New Mexico, but the State does not have an effective system for recognizing and
rewarding their achievements in the classroom. Further, the absence of an objective framework to fully
and fairly assess teacher and school leader quality has resulted in the failure to effectively assess
performance, in particular as it relates to measureable student achievement, and to reward excellence and
establish real accountability.
Any new evaluation framework to measure teachers and school leaders must better enable districts to
address and improve school personnel policies concerning professional development, promotion,
compensation, performance pay and tenure. Further, the framework should identify teachers and school
leaders who are most effective at helping students succeed, provide targeted assistance and professional
10
development opportunities for teachers and school leaders, inform the match between teacher assignments
and student and school needs and inform incentives for effective teachers and school leaders
Finally, we believe that educators should be equipped with accurate and actionable data provided in a
timely manner upon which they can improve the art and science of teaching and correspondingly prepare
their students for success in college and career.
Process On April 25, 2011, Governor Susana Martinez announced the establishment of the New Mexico Effective
Teaching Task Force through an Executive Order (included in the Appendix). The Task Force was
charged with making recommendations to the Governor in four key areas:
1. Identified measures of student achievement – representing at least 50 percent of the
teacher evaluation – which shall be used for evaluating educator performance;
2. Identification of demonstrated best practices of effective teachers and teaching, which
should comprise the remaining basis for such evaluation;
3. How these measures of effective practice should be weighted; and
4. How the State can transition to a performance-based compensation system, whereby
acknowledging student growth and progress.
The Executive Order also established corresponding expectations for school leaders.
After receiving nearly 200 nominations to the Task Force, twelve members were appointed, in addition to
Public Education Secretary-designate Hanna Skandera and staff from the Legislative Finance Committee
and the Legislative Education Study Committee. Of the twelve appointed members, nine are current or
former teachers, eight represent minority or special needs communities, seven are school administrators,
and six are parents. Representatives from the business community and organized labor were also
appointed. In total, more than 100 years of teaching experience are represented by the Task Force.
To complete its work, the Task Force, with support from Public Education Department staff, read and
reviewed the latest research on teacher and school leader evaluations, compensation, observation
protocols, professional development, licensure, advancement, and details related to the current New
Mexico teacher and school leader evaluation system. The Task Force met 10 times as a full group
between June 2011 and August 2011. Additionally, the Task Force divided into workgroups to develop
proposed recommendations on specific topics.
A full list of resources utilized by the Task Force, including presenters and presentations, is included in
the Appendix and can be found on the Public Education Department website at
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/.
11
Report Outline The report is comprised of five sections. The first section makes recommendations specific to teacher
and school leader evaluations and how to design an evaluation system that places a preponderance on
student achievement gains, while balancing the need for multiple measures.
Section two focuses on professional development and makes recommendations as to how professional
development offerings can be aligned to data yielded by a comprehensive evaluation section and ensure
alignment throughout.
The third section focuses on the recruitment and retention of New Mexico teachers. Section four
expands upon the recommendations in section three and delineates how to develop a compensation and
advancement system that recognizes our most effective teachers and attracts new recruits to the field of
teaching, while balancing the best way to exit those teachers who are shown to be ineffective after
multiple evaluations and supported opportunities to improve.
Finally, section five proposes next steps that are related to the specific recommendations outlined. The
Task Force has identified a number of activities and areas that should be explored to further the work
outlined in this report.
12
Section I: Teacher and School Leader Evaluation
Overview Research has clearly demonstrated the importance of the teacher in the classroom and the importance of leadership in each school. (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005) In fact, our teachers are our biggest “change agents” when it comes to improved student achievement. When it comes to student learning, the difference between an average teacher and an exemplary teacher is noteworthy. Further, the impact that an exemplary teacher can have on a student’s achievement over a three year period is remarkable. Data from NCTQ represents this tremendous impact:
Hence, the New Mexico’s Effective Teaching Task Force has embarked on an endeavor to capture the importance of student learning in teacher and principal evaluations and differentiate the levels of effectiveness to inform professional development and compensation and advancement.
In a recent 2010 sample of twenty-five percent of New Mexico’s teachers, 99.998 percent of these teachers received a rating of “meets competency” on their evaluations (versus “does not meet competency”) (Public Education Department data, 2010). Yet we are not seeing proportional success in terms of New Mexico student achievement. This suggests a lack of alignment between the system that measures teacher performance and the system that measures student learning outcomes.
Furthermore, the NCTQ reports that New Mexico is not among the 12 states that have embraced the notion that evidence of student learning must be the most important criteria in teacher tenure and annual teacher evaluations. (NCTQ, 2010).
13
Measuring the effectiveness of teachers and principals means very little if we do not consider the extent, via multiple measures, to which students are making progress toward clear academic goals. New Mexico needs reform grounded in excellent teaching and leadership as evidenced by improved student achievement, classroom observations, and other proven multiple measures.
The workgroup makes the following recommendations:
Teacher Evaluation Recommendation 1: New Mexico should replace its overly simplistic pass/fail teacher evaluation system with five effectiveness levels.
Rationale: The current binary system affords evaluators no opportunity to differentiate educator performance within the categories of “meets competencies” or “does not meet competencies.” Research indicates that multiple levels of effectiveness are needed in order to provide a mechanism for distinguishing average work performance from truly outstanding work performance (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2007).
Recommendation 2: Effectiveness levels should only be assigned after careful consideration of multiple measures, including student achievement data, observations, and other proven measures selected by local districts from a list of options approved by New Mexico’s Public Education Department (PED).
Rationale: All three components are necessary to equitably measure teacher effectiveness. However, student achievement must constitute at least 50% of a teacher’s evaluation, with observations and other proven measures comprising the other half of the evaluation. Districts must weight observations at 25%, though they should retain local flexibility concerning the observation protocols (with PED approval).
7 5
39
Yes Some Consideration
No
Number of states where “evidence of student learning” is the most important criterion for granting teacher tenure
12
28
35
Requires evidence of effectiveness to be the
preponderant criterion for teacher evaluation
Requires evaluation to include student
achievement data
Requires evaluation to include classroom
observations
In both charts, indicates that the data includes New Mexico (Source: NCTQ)
| | | | | |
Ineffective Minimally effective Effective Highly effective Exemplary
14
Districts should also have autonomy (with PED approval) to select the “other measures” to be used for the remaining 25% of the evaluation.
Recommendation 3: In order to reliably capture student achievement, we recommend the use of a value-added model of data analysis. Each teacher’s value-added1 contribution would be calculated by PED staff, and after a data review procedure similar to that which occurs before the release of schoolwide student achievement data, this calculation would be disseminated to local districts for inclusion in the locally-adopted teacher evaluation process. In addition, each teacher should receive a copy of his or her value-added calculation in order to inform instruction. Teachers in tested grades and subjects will be evaluated in the following way:
• 50% based on VAM of student achievement; • 25% based on observations; and • 25% based on locally adopted (and PED approved) multiple measures.
Rationale: Cutting-edge value-added methodologies are most able to isolate and measure the contribution of each teacher to student learning gains (Herman, Heritage, & Goldschmidt, 2011). Given New Mexico’s diverse student population, such a model also helps to control for demographic differences and level the playing field for teachers statewide. Consistent with Governor Martinez’s Executive Order, we also believe that this component should account for fully 50% of a teacher’s evaluation, as it is strongly tied to student outcomes. For those grades and subjects which are measured by the NM Standards Based Assessment (SBA), currently New Mexico’s most valid and reliable statewide assessment, it is recommended that the results of this assessment serve this purpose. For non-tested subjects and grades, other assessments (including PED-approved local assessments) should be used to measure the value added by an individual teacher to student achievement. However, research cautions that formative—or short-cycle—assessments should not be used for this purpose, because their inclusion as a component of
1 A commonly referenced application of a growth model is a value-added model. VAMs are one type of growth model in which states or districts use student background characteristics and/or prior achievement and other data as statistical controls in order to isolate the specific effects of a particular school, program, or teacher on student academic progress. The main purpose of VAMs is to separate the effects of nonschool-related factors (such as family, peer, and individual influence) from a school’s performance at any point in time so that student performance can be attributed appropriately.
Student Achievement
50%
Observations 25%
Other Measures
25%
15
evaluation undermines their use as a tool to inform instruction and guide curricular decisions (Herman, et. al., 2011).
Recommendation 4: We recommend phasing in the use of value-added evaluations, first for teachers in tested grades and subjects and subsequently for teachers in non-tested grades and subjects, though both subsets of teachers will be evaluated through observations and other approved measures immediately. Until such time as other assessments are available and/or approved for use in calculating value-added measurements of student achievement in non-tested grades and subjects, teachers in non-tested grades and subjects will be evaluated in the following way:
• 25% based on a schools A-F School Grade; • 25% based on observations; and • 50% based on locally adopted (and PED approved) multiple measures.
This approach acknowledges the extent to which all teachers in a school building, both in tested and non-tested grades and subjects, contribute to the school’s overall student learning gains, while creating consistency within the system based on the use of observations and multiple measures. We anticipate that this protocol will be used as a bridge for no more than two school years.
Rationale: While we recognize that time will be needed to identify, develop, and approve assessments in non-tested grades and subjects that may be used to measure the student achievement portion of a teacher’s evaluation, we note the inadequacy of our current teacher evaluation system in this respect. This shortcoming must be remedied immediately. Further, regardless of the instruments used for this portion of teacher evaluations, decisions remain about which students count when calculating value-added measurements. (For example, how are students apportioned when they move between schools and districts during a school year? And to whom is student achievement attributed in classrooms utilizing team teaching strategies, including the use of inclusion special education teachers?) Other states have already begun to grapple with these questions, and we recommend researching their work as we seek to define who exactly should be the “Teacher of Record” in calculating value-added measurements.
Multiple Measures
50%Observations
25%
School Grade 25%
16
Recommendation 5: In addition to student achievement, we recommend the continued use of observations, with objective protocols, in the evaluation of each teacher’s performance.
Rationale: Observations offer evaluators the opportunity to assess whether teachers are meeting competencies in practice, yet they also provide a mechanism by which teachers can reflect on their strengths and weaknesses to improve instruction. We recommend a minimum of four observations be conducted each year, with a minimum of 2 per year per teacher to be conducted by the school leader. Local districts may wish to have other personnel—including trained, PED-approved external evaluators—conduct the balance of these observations, though these additional reviews may not necessarily be evaluative. Indeed, some may be conducted by instructional coaches or peer mentors and may serve a more formative purpose for the ongoing development of the classroom teacher. Nonetheless, all observations (whether evaluative or formative) should utilize the same PED-approved, locally-adopted instrument and follow a uniform protocol to ensure inter-rater reliability (Sterbinsky, & Ross, 2003) and all observations should generate timely feedback to the teacher for the purpose of improving instruction.
Recommendation 6: As local districts adopt research-driven, PED-approved measures for the remaining portion of a teacher’s evaluation, it is important to ensure opportunity for key stakeholders (teachers, school leaders, parents, community members, etc.) to provide public input on the policy decision.
Rationale: These other measures offer evaluators alternate methods of capturing teacher effectiveness. They may include portfolios of teacher & student work, surveys of parents or students (or perhaps peers), or other research-based measures proven to demonstrate or correlate to student learning gains. In the interest of aligning multiple systems, local districts may also derive up to 10 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation from the school’s grade under the A-F School Grading Act.
Recommendation 7: New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system should utilize a matrix in which the left and right halves of the chart above combine to determine a teacher’s overall effectiveness rating.
Rationale: A matrix demonstrates with transparency the convergence of both quantitative and qualitative data for each teacher being evaluated in this system. The matrix also ensures that no teacher whose student’s demonstrate the lowest level of achievement can earn a rating of “effective” or higher. Likewise, the mere presence of outstanding student achievement data does not guarantee a high overall rating if the teacher receives poor marks based upon observations or other proven measures included in the evaluation.
While rare, it is conceivable that a teacher could earn the highest rating on one axis of the matrix and the lowest rating on the other axis. (For example, one could receive poor ratings on observations and other measures but still demonstrate the highest possible student learning gains.) In such an event, we propose that such scoring trigger an automatic review, to be conducted by the PED or trained external evaluators, to provide for input into their final evaluation.
17
Pr
ofes
sion
al P
ract
ice
& R
espo
nsib
ility
(O
bser
vatio
ns &
Oth
er M
easu
res)
Student Learning Outcomes (Value Added)
Ineffective (1)
Minimally Effective
(2) Effective
(3)
Highly Effective
(4) Exemplary
(5) Ineffective
(1) I I M M* M*
Minimally Effective
(2) I M E E E* Effective
(3) M E E H H Highly
Effective (4) M* E H H X
Exemplary (5) M* E* H X X
Key: I = Ineffective M = Minimally Effective E = Effective H = Highly Effective X = Exemplary (Ratings in any of these cells marked with an * will trigger an automatic review.)
Recommendation 8: We recommend that a post-evaluation conference with the evaluator provide each teacher with actionable feedback, though we caution that this conference and the feedback delivered therein not be considered a “due process” requirement without which an ineffective teacher may not be terminated.
Rationale: Timely feedback, with action steps, helps to guide both the creation of each teacher’s professional development plan and the staff development program of the school or district. It focuses both teacher and evaluator on the actions necessary to help students reach established academic goals. We are also heartened by the imminent implementation of both “common core” standards and assessments, which together will offer New Mexico an opportunity to more clearly define learning expectations for our students and to shift to the most sophisticated assessment system available, both for the purpose of informing instruction and for measuring teacher effectiveness. Until then, teachers should receive regular reports containing classroom-level standardized test data which can be used to make meaningful improvements in instruction.
Principal Evaluation Recommendation 1: As with teachers, New Mexico should replace its overly simplistic pass/fail principal evaluation system with five effectiveness levels.
18
Rationale: The current binary system affords evaluators no opportunity to differentiate educator performance within the categories of “meets competencies” or “does not meet competencies.” Research indicates that multiple levels of effectiveness are needed in order to provide a mechanism for distinguishing average work performance from truly outstanding work performance. (Weisberg, D., et. al. 2007).
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the emphasis on student achievement in teacher evaluation also be reflected in the evaluation of the school leader.
Rationale: The A-F Schools Grading Act captures an entire school’s student learning status and gains, through measurements of both achievement and annual growth. The scope of this data reflects the schoolwide instructional leadership of the building principal. Because each New Mexico school will soon be assigned a grade under the A-F Schools Grading Act, derived from the proficiency and learning gains demonstrated by its students, we recommend linking our principal evaluation system to this new school grading system. Specifically, we recommend that fully 50% of a school principal’s evaluation be based on the school’s annual progress in the A-F Grading System.
Recommendation 3: The remaining 50% should be comprised of other measures, half of which must consider the fidelity with which the principal implements the teacher evaluation process.
Rationale: In addition to student achievement captured through the A-F School Grade, other measures should be included demonstrate a principal’s effectiveness. Because the implementation of teacher evaluations has heretofore varied widely between schools and districts, evaluations of principals must now weight the proper implementation of this process at 25%. Without fidelity, any new system will struggle. Districts will still retain autonomy (with PED approval) to select the “other measures” to be used for the remaining 25%. Such multiple measures, which should be linked to improved student achievement, may include the recruitment and retention of effective teachers, the use of surveys (of students, parents, and/or teachers), or other methods capable of demonstrating principal effectiveness.
A-F School Grade 50%Fidelity of
Teacher Evaluations
25%
Other Measures
25%
| | | | | |
Ineffective Minimally effective Effective Highly effective Exemplary
19
Recommendation 4: Similar to that used in the teacher evaluation system, New Mexico’s principal evaluation system should utilize a matrix in which the left and right halves of the chart above combine to determine a principal’s overall effectiveness rating.
Rationale: A matrix demonstrates with transparency the convergence of both quantitative and qualitative data for each principal being evaluated in this system. The matrix also ensures that principals are held accountable for the year over year progress of their school under the A-F Schools Grading Act, combined with multiple additional measures of principal effectiveness.
Pr
ofes
sion
al P
ract
ice
& R
espo
nsib
ility
A – F School Grading Progress (NOTE: Maintaining an “A” grade from one year to the next automatically
places the principal in column #5)
-2 or more grades, or maintain F
(1)
-1 grade, or
maintain D (2)
Maintained grade of C or better
(3)
+1 grade
(4)
+2 or more
grades (5)
Ineffective (1) I I M M M*
Minimally Effective (2) I M E E E
Effective (3) M E E H H
Highly Effective (4) M E H H X
Exemplary (5) M* E H X X Key: I = Ineffective M = Minimally Effective E = Effective H = Highly Effective X = Exemplary (Ratings in any of these cells marked with an * will trigger an automatic review.)
20
Section II: Professional Development
Overview School based leaders and teachers provide the foundation for any successful school, and as such they are
among the most important investments of time and funding that any school, district or state can make.
Professional development is invaluable not only as an intervention for educational professionals
struggling within the profession, but also as a tool for professional growth and continual improvement in
classroom practice. However, not all professional development opportunities can demonstrate student
improvement in the classroom. Variables differ in their eventual impact on an instructors’ change in
instructional practice, and therefore their influence on better instruction. (Garet, 2001).
For this reason, professional development should focus on the subject matter the teacher is teaching, align
teachers’ learning opportunities with their individual experiences, emphasize observing and analyzing
students’ understanding of subject matter, and be able to demonstrate its effects in the classroom on
teachers’ practices and student learning.
To this end, professional development will be an integral part of the evaluation process and fall into three
broad categories: 1) systems training on the evaluation system, expectations and procedures, 2)
professional learning targeted to state/district/school initiatives and priorities, 3) individualized, tailored,
needs-based professional development.
21
Systems Training The PED will annually provide training on the aligned evaluation/professional development system.
Every administrator with evaluative responsibilities will complete a comprehensive training prior to
evaluating teachers. All teachers should be provided training on the system upon entrance into the state’s
teaching corps.
State/District/Schoolwide Professional Development Professional development targeted to state/district/school goals and initiatives will be developed with
increased student achievement as the goal. Professional development must be based on research-based,
proven strategies. As quickly as possible, a data-base should be established and maintained providing
information on available quality professional development activities.
Individual Professional Development Professional development will be student-centered, with design and implementation the shared
responsibility of the administrator and the teacher. Administrators and district leaders will provide
guidance and coaching to support the teacher in the completion of professional learning activities. All
professional development will be informed by comprehensive data including, but not limited to, student
achievement on standardized measures, results of informal assessments, observations, self-assessments,
and surveys. All professional development will be designed and implemented with attention to the goal
of increased student achievement, with clearly defined objectives, timelines, and expected outcomes
clearly delineated at each level. Determination of success of the professional development must be
partially determined by measurable increases in student achievement and professional reflection.
Progress on professional development will be monitored quarterly by both supervisor and instructor. The
ultimate aim of professional development for both teachers and principals is to increase student learning
by improving teacher and principal performance. Because 50% of a teacher’s evaluation is based on
student outcomes, teacher professional development will be driven by the goal of improved student
learning at the classroom level; because 50% of a principal’s evaluation is based on school grade,
principal professional development will be driven by the goal of improved student learning at the building
level. All the “other measures,” including observations, that are used to evaluate teachers and principals
will be incorporated into professional development plans to ensure alignment at all levels of the
evaluation system.
Specifically, the workgroup makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Establishment of a Professional Development Committee by the PED to review
research in the area of effective professional development and make recommendations on allowable,
22
research-driven, proven professional development opportunities to be chosen by the state, districts, and
administration. The purpose of the standing committee is to ensure that professional development is
designed to enhance student learning and continuously improve the quality of teaching and educational
leadership in New Mexico schools.
Rationale: There has been an explosion of professional development opportunities currently available to
schools and districts. The vast majority of these opportunities however have little or no data
demonstrating enhancement of classroom performance. (Cohen & Hill, 2001). Rather these programs,
many of them at a large cost to the school and district, have at best anecdotal evidence tying practice to
classroom improvement. Additionally, administrators have little time to adequately research a
professional development opportunity to determine its potential effectiveness in classroom instruction. A
stringent review process at the state level, by the professional development committee would maintain an
approved pool of providers and opportunities from which an administrator or district personnel could
choose programs specific to the school/districts unique needs. The committee would develop procedures
for identification and approval of professional development activities as well as identify specific
professional skills and knowledge that are necessary for effective educators; both at the administrative
and teaching level, and approve opportunities for the enhancement of these identified skills and
knowledge.
Recommendation 2: Redirect current established state and federal professional development funds
toward approved professional development.
Rationale: Currently a substantial investment of the states professional development is directed toward
support of dossier and portfolio requirements for level III licensure. However, there is no evidence tying
attainment of level II or level III licensure by teaching professionals to student improvement in the
classroom. Additionally, there is limited evidence that number of years of experience teaching or degree
level attained has any impact on student improvement in the classroom. There is evidence however that
reform-oriented professional development has a positive relationship to classroom practice and student
achievement. (SREB, 2009). State and federal dollars for professional development should be spent on
the development of practices which demonstrate increases in student achievement. However, local
districts may choose to incorporate the dossier process into professional development options, with the
goal of incorporating best practices that are valuable to professional growth, such as reflection upon
teaching practices, into professional development activities with proven positive impact in the classroom.
23
Recommendation 3: Professional Development approved by the Professional Development Committee
must be implemented by districts and schools and individuals in a manner which has demonstrated
positive student achievement impact.
Rationale: Research indicates a fairly narrow series of activities which have demonstrated a positive
outcome in student performance. Specifically, effective delivery systems are those surrounding 1)
higher-order thinking skills, 2) teaching different populations of students, and 3) hands on learning.
Positive delivery systems included 1) conference and leading discussion, 2) summer institutes, 3) study
group and receipt of classroom mentoring, and 4) classroom mentoring and development of assessments
or review of student work. (Essential Information for Educational Policy, 2005). Of particular note is the
specific effectiveness of frequent discussion of instruction with colleagues and principal with positive
classroom achievement. Only activities and delivery stems which have demonstrated success in student
performance should be approved.
Recommendation 4: Make STARS data available to individual schools, administrators, and teachers so
that accurate data can be effectively utilized. Additionally, provide professional development on the use
of data specific to the state, district, school, teacher, and student needs and goals.
Rationale: It can be argued that analysis of data is the single most powerful tool an instructor has in the
support of student achievement. Examination of real time data allows for augmentation of classroom
practice in and effort to intervene and support classroom achievement. Yet the vast majority of teachers
do not have access to the very data that should drive their instruction. Often teachers can recite the
performance of their school as a whole, but not their individual classrooms and students. Currently the
State of New Mexico collects massive amounts of student data frequently throughout the school year. A
system of analyzing this data, and making it available to individual teachers and administrators, would
allow classroom practice to address issues throughout the school year, resulting in a more positive
outcome at the end of the year. Access to this data for administrators would facilitate the development of
a professional development plan with the instructor that would support this outcome and illuminate gaps
in school curricula. If data drive performance and outcome, then the data should be available to the
practitioner.
When the states data is drilled down to the district, school and teacher level, that data must then drive the
professional development for the district, school, and individual. Research demonstrates that to be
effective, professional development must be applicable to the individual classroom and teacher.
Professional development must be precise, immediately applicable and unique to the given educational
setting. Professional development that is general and not immediately germane to the current specific
24
instructional milieu is ineffective (Wenglinsky, 2002, and Blank & Alas, 2009). A professional
development activity or program is more likely to be effective if it is: a) consistent with the teacher’s
school curriculum or learning goals for students and/or aligned with state or district standards for student
learning or performance, b) congruent to the day-to-day operations of schools and teachers, and c)
compatible with the instructional practices and knowledge needed for the teachers’ specific assignments.
Examination of teacher/student data will help identify the areas of need and therefore drive the
professional development activity.
Recommendation 5: In an effort to ensure fidelity and continuity of programs, professional development
programs should total no less than 49 hours in a specific area of need.
Rationale: Studies indicate that 49 hours or more of professional development is necessary for
significant increase in student achievement. (REL Southwest, 2007). However, across New Mexico,
districts vary widely in the number of professional development hours attained annually. This should be
standardized across the state and aligned with the states standards and goals. Again, the four main areas
of effective professional development are : 1) Focus on teacher behaviors applied generically across
content, 2) Focus on teaching behaviors applied to specific content areas, 3) Focus on curriculum and
pedagogy justified by how students learn, 4) Focus on how students learn and how to assess what they
learn. Any less than 49 hours of professional development demonstrated diminishing returns on student
performance gains.
Recommendation 6: Data should be collected quarterly to assure professional development techniques
presented are implemented in the classroom. PED should keep records of individual teacher’s
professional development and professional intervention plan documentation.
Rationale: Record keeping and data collection by the PED would not only ensure that professional
development is occurring in an efficient and approved manner, but it would also allow another layer of
data to be utilized in analyzing student performance. The approved list for professional development
activities should be a fluid one, with activities which do not translate into positive classroom performance
being eliminated and new opportunities with proven performances added. Additionally, as professional
development will be tied to annual performance evaluations of educational personnel, accurate record
keeping by the PED is necessary. Professional development plans should include identification of area of
growth as demonstrated by student performance, a timeline for achieving the improvement, the manner in
which improvement will be assessed, predetermined benchmarks for measuring progress and
differentiated activities and professional development to support the educator’s improvement in those
25
areas. Professional development plans will be developed collaboratively between the teacher and the
supervisor.
Recommendation 7: Statewide professional development should be implemented annually across the
state and it should be “frontloaded” prior to the beginning of the school year.
Rationale: The PED should sponsor approved professional development at several locations around the
state on the same day, differentiated according to content and professional position. This would allow for
professional development opportunities to be delivered in a uniform manner. Additionally, it would
allow educators from across the state to network and share best practices. However, it is important that
this practice does not negatively impact classroom time. For this reason, statewide professional
development should be offered outside of the school year, preferably prior to the beginning of school.
Recommendation 8: Principal professional development should align to teacher professional
development. In conjunction with their direct supervisors, principals should be developing data-driven
professional development plans that improve student outcomes for their building, increase their school
grade, which accounts for 50% of their evaluation, and allow them to meet other measures of performance
captured in the other 50% of their annual evaluation.
Rationale: The recognition that effective school reform rests in large part on sound principal
professional development is well established (Peterson, 2001). In order to ensure all our systems are
aligned, we expect our principals to be taking part in the same methods and amount of professional
development in which teachers are taking part. The focus and rationale for principal professional
development must be around an essential question concerning problems of practice, specifically to
teaching and learning. As with teachers, the source of these essential questions to be addressed through
professional development must be found in the data collected about students, school, district, and student
achievement. As with teachers, professional development for principals must be on the approved list by
the Professional Development Committee and shaped by the competencies of the principal evaluation
system that constitute effective action by the principal in support of learning for all students. Professional
development for principals should reflect the framework of the state, district and school professional
development plan, and must include measureable outcome targets.
26
Section III: Recruitment and Retention
Overview There are many issues to consider when addressing retention and recruitment, but most important to New
Mexico business, community members, parents, students and educators is that of recruiting and retaining
the best personnel from in and outside of New Mexico to provide the very best possible education for our
students. Volumes have been written about the challenge of recruiting and retaining highly qualified
teachers in general and, in particular, in special education and STEM fields. Shortages of qualified
educators have long been a serious concern for school systems, especially in rural areas and in
challenging/low-performing, high-need schools. As members of the New Mexico Effective Teaching
Task Force, this workgroup has studied and reviewed literature that supports a strong evaluation system
for teachers, retention and recruitment of teachers, and incentives for teachers within a strong evaluation
system.
“Teacher retention is a persistent issue in school improvement. While it is true that some degree of teacher turnover in schools is both healthy and inevitable, the exodus of large numbers of teachers over time diminishes the overall capacity of a school to serve its students. In addition, it creates new problems related to recruiting and inducting new teachers. Statistics show that small schools, urban schools, and schools serving high-minority, high-poverty populations are particularly at risk of losing teachers (Marvel, Lyter, Peltola, Strizek, & Morton, 2007).
The workgroup makes the following recommendations:
Teachers Recommendation 1: Create a diversified pay structure that is based on teacher effectiveness (outputs) as
evidenced by student growth, observations, and other clear, multiple measures. As the New Mexico
Teacher Evaluation System is refined, it is recommended that a task force is assembled to research
incentive and compensation programs that have been implemented in recent years to determine the best
practices within those programs that lead to improved student academic achievement and teacher
retention and recruitment.
Rationale: Most recently, the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), in its 2007 report
on the skills of the American workforce, called for an overhaul of the education and training system and
singled out the teacher compensation system as badly in need of reform, bluntly describing it as “designed
to reward time in service, rather than to attract the best and brightest of our college students and reward
the best of our teachers.”
27
A joint statement was issued in February 2011 by members of The American Association of School
Administrators (AASA), The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), The National Education
Association (NEA) and the National School Boards Association (NSBA). This statement was titled,
“Guiding Principles for Teacher Incentive Compensation Plans”. In their recommendations for
developing and implementing an incentive compensation plan, they include:
• “School boards, administrators and unions/associations should review various models of incentive compensation plans, including research about their effectiveness, before developing a plan at the local level;” and
• “The incentive compensation plan should be based on a multifactor approach (e.g. teacher evaluations, student performance growth, specific goals set by teachers and management, increased responsibilities, assessment of student learning) that is researched-based and improves student achievement.”
Recommendation 2: Create a system for incentive pay to teach in critical-shortage subject areas (i.e.
math, science, special education classes, in rural areas and other hard to staff areas. This system could
support incentives for teachers who work in Title I schools, as well as other at risk factors identified in
each district’s area (i.e. math and science, urban, rural, etc).
Rationale: The quality of the teacher is the most important school-related factor in improving student
learning. Although research is still limited on the impact of an incentive system, it is logical to assume
that financial incentives will attract the best and brightest individuals to enter the classroom in critical
need areas and in challenging schools. Specifically, we believe it will expand the pool of those attracted
to the teaching profession.
States typically update critical-shortage subject areas each year, depending on staffing levels. Often hiring
math and science teachers, as well as special education teachers, can be difficult. School districts also
find difficulty in hiring adequate staff to teach primarily at-risk or disadvantaged students. Offering
incentives in this area could attract a higher percentage of high quality teachers.
Recommendation 3: Provide academic scholarships in New Mexico for those going into education,
including high-quality, alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least
four years in a high-need field or location.
Rationale: We know that good teachers make a difference in every American classroom. Studies show
that for too long, our retention and recruitment has been oriented in the wrong direction with regards to
this teacher quality shortage (Weisberg, et. al., 2007). Our inability to support high-quality teaching in
28
many of our schools is driven not necessarily by too few teachers coming in, but by too many going out,
that is, by a staggering teacher turnover and attrition rate.
Recommendation 4: Develop a program that offers an opportunity for an adjunct license for part time
teaching.
Rationale: Various states offer this type of license to increase a district’s flexibility to staff certain
subjects that are frequently hard to staff or may not have high enough enrollment to necessitate a full-time
position. Most states require verification of content knowledge and current employment in the field
which the candidate will teach. For example, Tennessee offers a one year adjunct license to candidates
who hold at least a bachelor’s degree and have verified knowledge of their teaching content area.
Candidates are also required to complete a pre-service preparation program approved by the state.
Arkansas allows adjuncts to teach up to two class periods a day in grades 7 – 12. Professional Teaching
Permit candidates must have a bachelor’s degree with a minimum of three years relevant work
experience, and be currently employed in the content field related to their intended teaching assignments.
In addition, applicants must pass a subject matter test.
Recommendation 5: Provide advancement and leadership opportunities for teachers. Utilize the
expertise of Level 3 teachers, or proven “master” teachers, to provide greater leadership capacity
throughout schools, districts and in the state.
Rationale: Research suggests that the greater the participation in decision making, the greater the job
satisfaction of teachers (Ingersol, 2003). Such empowerment has been shown to be a key influence on
whether teachers remain in school. Opportunities must be provided so that teachers do not feel that the
only way to advance is to leave teaching and advance to administration. This recommendation involves
utilitizing Level III teachers in greater leadership capacities in the school, district, and state. Teacher’s
work in this area should also be a part of the evaluation process.
Recommendation 6: Adequately fund school budgets to give teachers time to plan and collaborate with
their colleagues. Recent budget cuts have taken away opportunities for teachers to have this needed time
for staff development, reflection and collaboration. In a push for more time in the classroom for students,
budget shortfalls have resulted in less teacher planning time to ensure that the time students do spend in
the classroom is productive. Going forward, it is critical that there is accountability for the dollars
allocated and that their use is transparent to taxpayers.
Rationale: Teachers at all grade levels typically have less than an hour a day of designated planning time
to prepare for multiple teaching periods. Elementary teachers have even less. The majority of teachers
29
surveyed in South Carolina report spending more than five hours per week outside the school day on
school-related activities such as grading and parent conferences (Hirsch, 2005). Johnson (2006) writes
that the lack of time to plan, teach, and assess not only creates stressful work conditions, it diminishes the
quality of instruction.
By altering schedules, schools are finding creative ways to provide more instructional time for students
and non-instructional time for teachers to plan and collaborate with their peers. Practices that ensure
productive and focused use of this time should also be implemented.
Principal Current research has highlighted the fact that the quality of school leaders has a significant impact on student achievement (Williams, et. al., 2010). Indeed, educational leadership is a critical component of student performance. Yet, currently the nation and New Mexico are experiencing a shortage of principal and superintendent candidates who are willing and able to take on the daily demands of the job. The following facts tell the story:
• Half of all district superintendents are 50 years old or older.
• Few leadership candidates are female and/or minority.
• The average time to fill a superintendent’s job (~15 hours/day) has doubled in the last 10 years.
• The average tenure of big-city superintendents is less than three years, and for superintendents in rural districts, the tenure is even shorter.
Results of the recent study by Fuller and Young suggest:
• Elementary schools have the longest principal tenure and greatest retention rates; • Less than 30 percent of newly hired high school principals stay at the same school at least five
years; • Principal retention rates are strongly influenced by the level of student achievement during the
principal's first year of employment, with the lowest achieving schools having the highest principal turnover;
• The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in a school is a major determinant in how long a newly hired principal will stay, with principals in high-poverty schools having shorter tenure and lower retention rates;
• More than 20 percent of newly hired secondary school principals in the lowest achieving schools or highest-poverty schools leave after only one year on the job;
• Principal retention is somewhat higher in suburban school districts where most students are white and not economically disadvantaged; and
• Principals' age, race and gender appear to play only a small role in principal retention.
Today’s principals must be able to manage the school culture so that staff, students, and parents feel
supported and so the culture of the school is focused on teaching and learning. The challenge for the
school leader today is highlighted by unparalleled complexity, as well as the demands of accountability.
30
The need for dynamic leaders in the school could not be greater. The way that principals are trained,
recruited, retained and developed must be addressed. Research shows that an effective teacher in the
classroom correlates to effective and supportive school leadership. (Williams, et. al., 2010).
Recommendation 1: Provide state-generated principal support groups to provide training in the state’s
teacher evaluation methods, priority school requirements, and uniform interventions. New Mexico needs
uniform and transparent processes implemented with fidelity. In addition, like principal groups should be
allowed to share challenges, solutions, questions and concerns. Having state facilitated geographical/like
groups should lead to the retention of educational leaders in New Mexico, as well as promote the
implementation of best practices in classrooms across the state. Groups such as the New Mexico School
Leadership Institute, which has experience facilitating such leadership support groups, could provide a
model.
Rationale: In Assessing the Effectiveness of School Leaders: New Directions and New Processes - The
Wallace Perspective, the authors state that “leading the learning work of schools for the future requires
whole new sets of skills and attributes that imply continuous learning. A continuously learning
organization, while not a new idea, is one that has increasing importance if our schools are to serve all
students well to a high standard. In the end, it is about the core outcomes for schools – for learning,
learning improvement, and educational opportunity.” Simply stated, it stands to reason that everyone,
from the preschool student through the teacher to the principal (and on to the district) is a learner – and
learning requires feedback and collaboration.
Additionally, if students are to achieve to high standards in New Mexico, the principal is one of the key
players in implementing any of the programs initiatives recommended in this report. Principals must be
supported, given a clear understanding of all process and allowed to collaborate in order to assure the
retention of effective principals who can support and help retain effective teachers in the classroom.
Recommendation 2: Beware of increasing paperwork and administrative burden for administrators. Be
sure accountability processes are aligned within the state department, districts offices, and schools.
Rationale: At present many of the reports or required for accountability are similar in many respects, but
different enough to require hours of repetitive work. EPSS Peer Review documentation and
accountability do not match the EPSS plan requirements. Schools are part of various other reviews such
as North Central Accreditation (Advanc-ED), Blue Ribbon Schools, HSTW Technical Assistance Visits,
and the like. These often duplicative requirements need to be streamlined in order to create an aligned,
31
comprehensive program for accountability that will support principals in achieving the goals of
accountability reporting.
Recommendation 3: Develop and implement research based recommendations for ways that central
office administration, starting with the superintendent, can support principals in their instructional
leadership roles.
Rationale: Principals cite difficulties turning student achievement around without the strong support of
the superintendent, human resources, and other central office personnel. Research shows that successful
school turnaround depends on effective leadership at every level in the educational community.
Recommendation 4: Examine principal pay scales and remove disincentives to advancement for
qualified school leaders moving from the classroom to the principal’s office.
Rationale: In some instances, teachers moving to assistant principal and principal positions face
significant pay cuts. Incentivizing strong leadership in schools will allow for a more robust principal
pipeline. Further, considerations need to be made in terms of allowing for higher salaries for principals
that serve low-performing schools, as well as hard to staff schools.
SUMMARY OF TEACHER RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Create a diversified pay structure that is based on teacher effectiveness (outputs) as evidenced by student growth, observations, and other clear, measurable standards.
2. Create a system for incentive pay to teach in critical-shortage subject areas or at schools that serve disadvantaged children (i.e. special education, children in low economic areas).
3. Provide academic scholarships in New Mexico for those going into education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location.
4. Develop a program that provides an opportunity for an adjunct license for part time teaching.
5. Provide advancement and leadership opportunities for teachers. Utilize three tiered licensed teachers expertise by providing greater leadership capacity throughout schools, districts and in the state.
6. Provide legislation that will give teachers time to plan and collaborate. Recent legislation has taken away opportunities for teachers to have this needed time for staff development, reflection and collaboration. In a push for more time in the classroom for students, there has been a decrease in teacher planning time ensure that the time students spend in the classroom is productive.
32
7. Provide strong administrative leadership in schools to support student academic success.
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide state generated principal support groups by geographical/like groups to provide training in the state’s teacher evaluation methods, priority school requirements, and uniform development of EPSS plans. New Mexico processes need to be uniform, transparent and implemented with fidelity. In addition, like principal groups should be allowed to share challenges, solutions, questions and concerns
2. Beware of increasing paperwork and administrative burden for administrators. Be sure accountability processes are aligned within the state department, districts office and schools.
3. Develop and implement research based recommendations for ways that central office administration, starting with the superintendent, can support principals in their instructional leadership roles.
4. Examine principal pay scales and remove disincentives to advancement for qualified school leaders moving from the classroom to the principal’s office.
33
Section IV: Compensation and Advancement
Overview New Mexico has a modified pay for performance system for teachers and educational leaders; however,
sufficient evidence of improved student achievement indicated by multiple measures is not reflected in
the licensure process and teacher evaluations that differentiate who gets to move up a tier and earn an
additional $10 thousand. The 3-tiered licensure system, the annual evaluation process, and the required
professional development plan (PDP) should be modified to include assessments of effective teaching tied
to student academic growth in order to inform compensation decisions and advancement through the
system. The Task Force also recognizes the importance of a streamlined system that avoids duplication
and unnecessary paperwork. Key levers to raising student achievement include annual teacher evaluation
and aligned professional development. As Russ Whitehurst from The Brookings Institute stated, we “need
to balance what’s fair and equitable to teachers with what’s fair and equitable to students.”
At present New Mexico looks to teacher qualifications (education and experience) as the measure of the
quality of teaching that occurs. Further, according to federal definitions under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, 99.4 percent of New Mexico teachers are rated as highly qualified. However,
only 53 percent of third graders are reading on or above grade level. It is important to make the
distinction that the federal “highly qualified” status is an input that describes the coursework and
certifications that a teacher has. It is not a measure of outcomes or teacher effectiveness.
According to the Legislative Finance Committee’s (LFC) FY12 Volume 1, “now that almost all New
Mexico teachers are meeting the federal ‘highly qualified’ standard, policy considerations are turning to
the issues of teacher effectiveness and whether teachers are providing instruction that will lead to high
levels of student achievement.” The Task Force supports the LFC recommendation that annual teacher
and principal evaluation systems and the licensure system be strengthened to require the use of student
academic growth as a factor in determining overall teacher and principal effectiveness.
Recommendation 1: Require annual evaluations and professional development plans which are in
alignment with the licensure system.
Rationale: Annual teacher evaluations should be tied to student achievement, including student
achievement data, observations, and multiple measures. Annual teacher evaluations should also assess
whether the teacher has a meaningful and relevant professional development plan that focuses on
measuring student learning, which also decreases subjectivity in this process. The professional
34
development plan should be expanded to include evaluation of effectiveness tied to student achievement
data.
Recommendation 2: Incorporate teacher effectiveness into the licensure process.
Rationale: Teacher licensure and advancement through the licensure system should be based on teacher
effectiveness (outputs) as evidenced by student growth, observations, and other clear, measurable
standards. Licensure decisions should be directly tied to student growth as it is less subjective than
current practices. Should the dossier continue to be utilized, each dossier submission should require the
inclusion of several years of cohort student achievement data as a component of teacher effectiveness.
Recommendation 3: Restructure the current 3-tier salaries/shift funding to results tied to annual
evaluations and professional development plans.
Rationale: Advancement through the 3-tiered licensure system can currently happen very quickly, with
large salary increases twice. Eligibility for salary increases are not contingent on showing effective
teaching skills but rather a showing that the requisite number of years of service, educational attainment,
and competencies have been met. Educators who advance through the system in the shortest period of
time receive a 67 percent increase in base compensation in their 7th year of licensure. Movement from
level 1 to level 2, which must happen between the third and fifth year of level 1 licensure, results in a 33
percent increase and movement from level 2 to level 3 results in a 25 percent increase. Once an educator
obtains a level 3 licensure compensation increases are dependent on district priorities and resources. The
costly tier increases limit the opportunity to reward effective teachers recognized in annual evaluations.
Statutory salary levels should be adjusted to raise the minimum salary for entry level teachers based of
effectiveness. Incremental increases for achievement of advanced licensure should be scaled back to
decrease the large differentials in increases that currently exist, but advancement opportunities should
occur more frequently. This would free up resources to allocate to a performance-based compensation
system.
Recommendation 4: Provide incentives to effective teachers and remove ineffective teachers from the
classroom. Additionally, the Task Force recommends providing statutory due process rights to teachers
after attaining level 2 licensure and has received effective evaluations.
Rationale: Currently, after three years of service teachers are granted statutory due process rights
(commonly referred to as tenure). Statute also allows a teacher to be eligible for three year contracts after
three consecutive years of service with the same district. Otherwise, teachers are only eligible for one
35
year contracts. The current requirement of three years minimum teaching at level I should be relaxed to
allow exemplary teachers, including those on an intern license, to advance any time after a one year
mentorship with a highly effective or exemplary evaluation rating. Due process rights should be tied to
licensure rather than years of service in a district, and with effective evaluations, as noted in section 1 of
this document, should be portable throughout New Mexico. Three year teaching contracts should only be
available to those teachers earning an exemplary rating during the preceding three years. Any teacher
who receives an effectiveness rating of ineffective or minimally effective shall only be able to enter into
single year contracts until that time at which the teacher can receive a highly effective or exemplary
effectiveness rating for three consecutive years. If, during the term of a three year contract, a teacher
receives an ineffective rating, the teacher’s subsequent contracts shall be for one year, until such time as
the teacher receives a highly effective or exemplary effectiveness rating for three years.
In addition to advancement opportunities, a system should be implemented to identify ineffective
teachers, establish meaningful and relevant targeted professional development opportunities, and
ultimately remove ineffective teachers from the classroom. Teachers identified as ineffective based on
their professional development plan and the annual evaluation should be supported with meaningful
professional development opportunities in the subsequent school year. School districts and charter
schools should provide additional targeted professional development for teachers earning ineffective
ratings that are tied to review of the professional development plan and the annual evaluation. Some
examples of how interventions and removal could occur are as follows. The first year a teacher earns the
lowest effectiveness rating, the teacher should receive targeted profession development. If the teacher
fails to show advancement in effectiveness level for a second year, the teacher shall be placed on a
professional growth plan. Failure to improve after the second year, assuming the teacher has received
targeted professional development and a meaningful professional growth and improvement plan will
constitute just cause for termination.
Recommendation 5: Align the training and experience with the 3-tiered licensure system.
Rationale: The training and experience (T&E) Index in the public school funding formula is currently not
aligned with the goal of hiring effective teachers. The T&E Index incentivizes hiring teachers who have
more years of service and have attained higher levels of education. The T&E Index should be better
aligned with the 3-tiered licensure system.
The 2006 funding formula study conducted by American Institutes for Research (An Independent
Comprehensive Study of the New Mexico Public School Funding Formula) recommended that the state
adopt an Index of Staff Qualifications (ISQ) to replace the T&E Index to account for the costs associated
36
with training, experience and the 3-tiered licensure system. The proposed ISQ is structured to reflect the
3-tiered licensure system and calibrated to reflect the average values of experience and educational
qualifications of instructional staff employed in New Mexico. The ISQ reflects both the minimum
compensation levels associated with each of the three tiers and the marginal values of additional years of
experience and different degree levels for professional staff. If licensure decisions are based on annual
evaluations and PDPs that measure teacher effectiveness, and the T&E Index is aligned with the licensure
system, this results in financial incentives for districts that hire and support effective teachers.
Recommendation 6: Require annual principal evaluations.
Rationale: Linda Paul of the New Mexico School Leadership Institute warns that “the number one cause
of teacher dissatisfaction is poor leadership.” It is equally as important to create a meaningful evaluation
system for principals and school building leaders. “Principal effectiveness drives teacher effectiveness,”
said Ivy Alford of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). Annual evaluations and professional
development plans should be similar to teacher evaluations and professional development plan
requirements, including a student achievement component. Evaluations of effectiveness tied to student
growth should serve as the basis for compensation decisions and advancement through the licensure
system.
Classroom evaluations by trained observers are at the top of the list in terms of effective evaluation
systems, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institute. A quality principal evaluation system
should identify principals who are conducting meaningful and effective evaluations of teachers. Russ
Whitehurst of Brookings indicated that there is good evidence that principals do a good job of evaluating
teachers among buildings. He also indicated that principals are the second most influential factor in a
child’s education. Requiring a principal evaluation system that identifies effective principals may be a
cost effective way of identifying quality teachers.
However, in order for principals to be effective evaluators, they must be properly trained as well as have a
strong standardized evaluation system in place. Ivy Alford of SREB notes that “principals are very
nervous about giving feedback” if there is not a strong evaluation system in place.
Recommendation 7: Evaluate the current 3-tier licensure system and dossier to minimize administrative
costs and determine effectiveness. This should be completed by PED within 3 months.
Rationale: There are concerns and risks of program duplication and increased administrative costs as an
enhanced annual teacher evaluation system is developed. Annual evaluations may provide more timely
data relevant to teacher advancement and professional development compared to the 3-tier licensure
37
System which may recognize effective performance only twice in a career. Additionally, the dossier
process does not have data to support its consistent and effective implementation. As New Mexico
transitions to a new teacher and school leader evaluation system, it is critical to ensure that existing
systems are effectively evaluated to determine their efficacy and alignment to any new system(s).
Recommendation 8: Delay implementation of performance based compensation system until the 2013-
2014 school year.
Rationale: A robust compensation system is needed to reward effective teachers. However,
implementation of such a system should be delayed until the 2013-2014 school year. Delaying
implementation will allow districts and charter schools to familiarize themselves with the new evaluation
system and address any issues that arise in the first year without being tied to high stakes decisions. In the
second year, a performance based compensation system that awards the most effective teachers should be
implemented. Effectiveness should be directly tied to the professional development plan and the annual
evaluation. Higher bonuses could be available for teachers with high poverty classes, or teachers teaching
in hard to staff areas.
Many of the presentations indicated rushing to implement a system is ill-advised. Presenters encouraged
New Mexico to engage in a well thought-out process that identified required components unique to New
Mexico. It is very “difficult to calibrate such a powerful tool so that it works in practice as intended,”
reports Susan Headden in her Education Sector Report: Inside IMPACT (D.C.’s evaluation model).
38
Section V: Next Steps
Overview Over the course of the summer, there were multiple discussions that the Task Force undertook related to areas that directly impact teacher and school leader evaluation, but were not within the direct scope of the Executive Order. As such, the Task Force has outlined several areas that warrant potential further exploration and review.
Pre-Service Training/Alternative Preparation/Teacher Recruitment • Study issues of pre-service teacher/administrator programs and adequacy of training prior to
entering the classroom/school building must be studied.
• Develop programs to recruit of top high school students into education programs in NM colleges
and universities must be discussed and addressed.
• Develop higher standards for entering into teacher education programs must be examined.
• Develop assessment standards for exiting pre-service teaching candidates must be evaluated.
Transition from 3-Tiers • Establish existing tiers into the new framework.
• Create a process that will base advancement on effectiveness and preparedness for instruction of
students.
Superintendent Evaluation • Consider evaluation based on student achievement.
• Consider the school board role.
• Allow for multiple measures.
Effective School Leaders Academy • Establish a statewide academy for training and developing effective school leaders that correlates
to the expectations of an Instructional Leader.
• Establish systemic and structured observation criteria for statewide use.
Technical Advisory Committee • Convene State and National experts in all areas of data, research, and statistical information (a
New Mexico technical assistance committee).
• Focus on implementation and analysis of effectiveness of all initiatives.
• Provide continuing advisory to PED, LESC, and LFC regarding effectiveness of initiatives and
evolution of entire process.
39
Licensure Renewal • Effectiveness, as measured by student growth, must be 50%.
• Determine appropriate duration of licenses.
• Revise fee structure for initial/continuing licensure.
Dossier Process • Review overall effectiveness of process and impact on student outcomes (within the next three
months).
• Review validity in recruitment and retention.
• Make as an optional tool, as determined by districts. Possible mandatory tool for PDP
improvement.
PED Implementation of PD for Effective Teacher/School Leader Evaluation • Introduce a menu of approved PD for individual districts.
• Create statewide and regional trainings for districts.
Continue to Address Other Key Elements of Comprehensive Public School Reform
• Increased time on task.
• Improved school readiness.
• Enhanced leadership training.
• Curriculum alignment.
• Timely availability of student performance data.
40
Appendix A: Meeting Dates and Topics
Meetings and Presentations June 1
• Coordinating meeting of Task Force.
June 14
• Teacher Evaluation in New Mexico: Current Requirements and Practices, Matt Montaño, New
Mexico Public Education Department
• Using Value Added Models to Monitor Teacher Effects, Pete Goldschmidt, PhD, formerly of the
UCLA CRESST center
June 21
• Professional Development Plans and Evaluation in NM, V. Sue Cleveland, Ed. D. and Sue
Passell, Ed. D., Rio Ranch Public Schools
• Evaluating Teachers in non-tested subjects and grades, Russ Whitehurst, PhD, Brookings Institute
June 30
• How to Best Measure the Effectiveness of Teachers and School Leaders Based on Specific
Parameters, Ivy Alford, Southern Regional Education Board
July 12
• Measures of Effectiveness, Linda M. Paul, Ed. D., New Mexico School Leadership Institute
• Training & Experience Index, R.L. Richards, Texico Municipal Schools.
July 19
• Teacher Quality: Building Capacity with Meaningful and Relevant Professional Development
Plans, Julie A. Radoslovich and Shelly Roberts, South Valley Academy
July 27
• Advancing Teacher Quality, Sandy Jacobs, National Council on Teacher Quality
August 2
41
• Pre-Service Training and Teacher Quality, Richard Howell, PhD, Dean of Education, University
of New Mexico
August 3
• Teacher Evaluation in New Mexico: From the Perspective of Recipients of the Golden Apple
Awards for Excellence in Teaching, Celia Merrill, Executive Director
August 13
• Preparation of final recommendations.
42
Appendix B: Works Cited and Works Reviewed
Works Cited and Works Reviewed American Institute for Research. (2006). An independent comprehensive study of the New Mexico public school funding formula. Retrieved from http://www.nmschoolfunding.org/.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching. Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/.
Blank, R.K., & Alas, N. (2009). Teacher professional development gains in student achievement: How meta analysis provides evidence useful to education leaders. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2009/Effects_of_Teacher_Professional_2009.pdf.
Center for Teaching Quality. Teacher working conditions toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.teacherworkingconditions.org/ Coggshall, J. G. (2006). Prospects for the profession: Public opinion research on teachers. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (2001) Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Essential Information for Educational Policy. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achievement.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 915-945.
Glazerman, S., D. Goldhaber, S. Loeb, S. Raudenbush, D.O. Staiger, G.J. Whitehurst. (2011). Passing muster: Teacher evaluation systems. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/brown.aspx
Goldschmidt, P., P. Roschewski, K. Choi, W. Auty, S. Hebbler, R. Blank, A. Williams (2005). Policymakers guide to growth models for school accountability: How do accountability models differ? Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers.
Hanushek, E. (2011). Valuing teachers. Cambridge, MA: Education Next. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/valuing-teachers/.
Herman, J. L., Hertitage, M., & Goldschmidt, P. (2011). Developing and selecting assessments for student growth for use in teacher evaluation systems. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Hetin, L. (2010). Report six: Six steps for upgrading teacher evaluation systems. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org.
43
Hirsch, E. (2005). Listening to the experts: A report on the 2004 South Carolina teacher working conditions survey. Chapel Hill, NC: Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/TWC_SCFinalReport.pdf Hirsch, E., & Emerick, S., Church, K., & Fuller, E. (2006). Arizona teacher working conditions: Designing schools for educator and student success. Results of the 2006 phase-in teacher working conditions survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/twcaz2006.pdf Hirsch, E., Emerick, S, Church, K., & Fuller, E. (2007). Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions: A report on the 2006 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/twcnc2006.pdf Ingersoll, Richard. (2003). Who control’s teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Johnson, S. M. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention, and effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/research/bestpractices/images/wcreport.pdf Public Education Department. (2009). Report # 09-08: The three-tiered licensure system and the achievement gap. Marvel, J., Lyter, D. M., Peltola, P., Strizek, G. A., & Morton, B. A. (2007). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2004–05 teacher follow-up survey. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007307.pdf National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). Blueprint for change: National summary. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/updates/docs/stpy_national.pdf.
Peterson, K. (2001). The professional development of principals: Innovations and opportunities. Paper Commissioned for the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation.
Sanders, W & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved from http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Sanders_Rivers-TVASS_teacher%20effects.pdf.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica 73(2): 417-458.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2009). Building the capacity of school leaders and teachers to implement reform at all levels. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org/cgi-bin/MySQLdb?VIEW=/public/view_home.txt.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2010). The three essentials: Improving school requires district vision, district and state support, and principal leadership. Retrieved from http://www.serb.org.
Sterbinsky, A. and Ross, S. (2003). School observation measure reliability study. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED500024.pdf.
44
Weisberg, D, Sextion, S, Mulhern, J, & Keeling, D. (2007). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in student achievement. New York: The New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://widgeteffect.org/.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance.
Williams, Rosin, et. al. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades. Edsource. Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/middle-grades-study.html.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
45
Appendix C: Fast Facts – Current NM System
New Mexico’s Student Demographics (09-10)
• Total Students - 325,542
184,49657%
92,73028%
34,92511%
8,7353% 4,588
1%680%
Total Students
Hispanic
Caucasian
American Indian
Black (non-Hispanic)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
46
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Asian
Caucasian
Hispanic
African American
American Indian
Asian Caucasian Hispanic African AmericanAmerican Indian
Science 62% 63% 35% 36% 24%
Reading 68% 67% 44% 46% 35%
Math 68% 59% 36% 35% 29%
Proficiency Rates by Ethnicity 2010-2011
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Economically Disadvantaged
Non-Economically Disadvantaged
Economically Disadvantaged Non-Economically Disadvantaged
Science 33% 61%
Reading 42% 60%
Math 34% 69%
Proficiency Rates by Socio-Economic Status 2010-2011
47
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sudents with Disabilities
Sudents without Disabilities
Sudents with Disabilities Sudents without Disabilities
Science 18% 45%
Reading 18% 55%
Math 15% 46%
Proficiency Rates for Students with Disabilities 2010-2011
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
English Language Learners
Non-English Language Learners
English Language Learners Non-English Language Learners
Science 18% 48%
Reading 24% 56%
Math 22% 47%
Proficiency Rates for English Language Learners 2010-2011
48
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
2010
2009
2008
2010 2009 2008
Rates 67.3% 66.1% 60.3%
Statewide Graduation Rates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2007-2008 3.40% 2.50% 1.17% 0.80% 0.55% 0.59% 0.85% 1.19% 12.51% 11.58% 6.81% 6.11%
2008-2009 3.47% 2.29% 1.27% 0.59% 0.64% 0.47% 1.05% 0.90% 11.96% 11.40% 6.78% 6.32%
2009-2010 3.15% 1.94% 1.00% 0.60% 0.42% 0.42% 0.71% 0.64% 11.34% 10.90% 7.12% 6.66%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Students Retained by Grades
49
Staff Data
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Superintendents Prinicpals Teachers - License Level 1
Teachers - License Level 2
Teachers - License Level 3
Average $109,126 $77,970
High $256,000 $127,130 $46,684 $66,171 $69,022
Low $74,800 $53,550 $27,938 $30,000 $26,500
Staff Salaries
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0%
06-07/07-08
07-08/08-09
08-09/09-10
06-07/07-08 07-08/08-09 08-09/09-10
Rate 16.4% 12.6% 14.1%
Principal Turnover
50
Annual state funding for Dossier/OPAL process (Title II)
• $300,00.00 VisionLink • $300,00.00 UNM Institute for Professional Development-Technical Assistance and Reviewer
Calibration • $300,00.00 UNM Transition to Teaching technical assistance • $23,000.00 F and R Smith for the Transition to Teaching review process
Total: $923,000 per year
3-Tiered System
• $278.4 million allocated to three tier system (2004-2009) • Only a difference of 2.8 point growth between Level III PDD completers and Level I teachers
o Currently, Level I teachers average 14 scale score points growth and Level III teachers average 16.8 scale score points growth in annual SBA testing.
o Students who are nearing proficiency need to grow by 55 points to reach proficiency. • All three tiers have ineffective teachers, even though compensation is similar at each level of
license • Current dossier system measures “case study” type reflection on practice as opposed to
classroom effectiveness • Very little connection to the evaluation process and the recommendation of the site
administrator
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Training and Experience $165,836,368 $196,849,969 $201,075,418 $200,075,418 $177,794,288 $162,914,780
Training and Experience Expenditures
51
• Dossier process opens up schools to lose “effective” teachers without regard to their actual classroom effectiveness.
• Dossier and OPAL process can easily be gamed for success. • Achievement is not a main focus of the Dossier or OPAL process. • Currently there is an 83% pass rate for first time submissions. • 99.998% satisfactory evaluations for teachers statewide.
Statewide implications
• PED spends close to $1 million annually in direct support of the Dossier/OPAL process. • PED dedicates 80% of its Professional Development Bureau in staffing the Dossier/OPAL process. • PED has limited ability to reach out to struggling school districts in need of professional
development. • Most of PED resources are dedicated to moving teachers through the 3-tier system, and not
consistent PD for creating an effective teaching task force.
Training and Experience
• 2005-2006 $165,836,367.94 • 2006-2007 $196,849,968.84 • 2007-2008 $201,075,418.07 • 2008-2009 $200,075,418.07 • 2009-2010 $177,794,287.55 • 2010-2011 $162,914,779.50
Total: $1,108,379,751.92
Overall, New Mexico has spent more than $1.3 Billion on T&E, the 3-tier system, and the dossier process in the past 6 academic years, including $164 Million in 2010-2011.
